Duck

What is the point of having The Encylopedia That Not Just Anyone Can Edit? Well, to make money, of course, somewhere down the line. But for the Wikipedians who toil day in and day out, with no hope of remuneration, there is another kind of reward: the satisfaction of knowing that one’s personal set of prejudices, or what is known at Wikipedia as one’s Point of View (POV), has become the dominant one on a given set of articles. Once an editor has ascended high enough in the pecking order, becoming one of Wikipedia’s leading peckers, he or she may hope to have his or her prejudices incorporated into the “House POV,” where they will be enshrined informally in Wikipedia Policy and protected against all outsiders.

How does one define the “House POV”? Well, it’s like porn. As U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Potter Stewart famously said, hard-core pornography is hard to define, “but I know it when I see it.” But how does one defend it against interlopers? Initially it was not easy, but as Wikipedia has evolved and matured over the years, the means of defense have been perfected in the “Duck Test.”

Because Wikipedians edit using pseudonymous screen names and therefore have no legal responsibility for what they write, sockpuppetry becomes an issue. Does Wikipedia oppose the practice of sockpuppetry? That depends, as usual, on who is doing it. Plus, it is difficult to detect, and difficult to prove. In fact, because of the way Wikipedia is structured, it is difficult to prove that any given editor is not a sock. But don’t take my word for it:

Do not make an unblock request that includes a request for checkuser to “prove your innocence” … as indicated at Sockpuppet investigations those are so rarely done that you’re better off not asking (besides, it is difficult to use it to prove that two editors are different people). – Wikipedia: Guide to appealing blocks

So, then, what is the point of having sockpuppet investigations? Well, to ban editors who display an incorrect POV. At one time it was considered necessary to have some sort of evidence, generally demonstrating that the accounts in question shared an IP address, or minimally that they geolocate to the same general neck of the woods. But none of that is necessary today, thanks to the Duck Test.

What is the Duck Test? Here, in its entirety, is the definition as presented by Wikipedia:

The duck test—”if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck”—suggests that a person can identify an unknown subject by observing that subject’s habitual characteristics.

There are certain standards and terminology that are often used to judge assertions:

1. Beyond a reasonable doubt
2. Clear and convincing evidence
3. Preponderance of the evidence
4. Duck test (suspicion) – Wikipedia:DUCK

So, we may dispense with the inconvenience of establishing clear and convincing evidence, and simply use “Duck test (suspicion).”

The most comprehensive and eloquent elaboration of the philosophy behind the Duck Test was presented at Wikipedia talk:Banning policy by User:McWeenie, whose Mayfly-like edit history is comprised of only 2 edits on August 30, 2009:

One must never lose sight of the fact that your banned user is a veritable criminal mastermind. He changes IP addresses with the greatest of ease; he laughs at geolocators; no technical security feature can stop him. Yet there is one thing he cannot change, one tell-tale, DNA-like feature which will inevitably trip him up: his POV. Try as he may to change his spots, the banned user’s POV will always surface, sooner or later. Therefore, we must not shrink from the only viable solution. Ultimately, we must publish an Index of Prohibited POVs. This will of course take time to prepare. In the meantime, we should instute (sic) a new feature, similar to the Village Pump, to be called the Wikipedia Post Office Wall. We will produce of gallery of known POVs attributed to banned users. Restoring, or creating, material that reflects these POVs will be considered prima facie evidence of guilt. Admins who represent the forces of righteousness must be empowered to take all necessary measures against these marauders from the outside world, including the ability to execute “spot bans” whenever a telltale POV is detected. Can we do any less to protect the project? –McWeenie (talk) 07:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

So, let’s say that you are attempting to edit an article with an incorrect POV. If you are the first person ever to do it, which is unlikely, you are disruptive and you will eventually be banned after a brief period of commotion and discussion. That’s the sort of thing that was common during Wikipedia’s Wonder Years. Nowadays, most incorrect POVs are already well established, and editors who display those POVs have been identified and banned. So, if you edit with a similar POV, you can be:

• A sockpuppet. Well, can you prove you aren’t? Don’t even think about asking for an IP check.
• A meatpuppet or proxy, meaning that you are the running-dog lackey of a banned user.

That’s it. There are no other possibilities. Congratulations!

You’re banned.

See also Dan Tobias’s policy gem, Wikipedia: How to Ban a POV You Dislike in 9 Easy Steps.

Several months ago, a number of Wikipedia Review members joined me in a project to methodically enumerate one calendar quarter’s worth (4Q 2007) of edit data underlying the 100 Wikipedia articles about the (then) current United States Senators.

What we found was alarming at times. While most vandalized edits were brief in duration and clearly juvenile in content, a substantial portion of edits were plainly intended to be hurtful and defamatory against the Senators — and they lasted for not just minutes, but hours, days, even weeks at a time.

Using the Wikipedia page traffic tool, we attempted to interpolate the number of “page views” that each Senator’s article likely witnessed during the damaged edit. The damaged edit that saw the greatest number of page views before correction regarded Senator John McCain: “McCain was born in Florida in the then American-controlled Panama Canal Zone“, which lasted for over 3 days, under about 93,000 views where nobody noticed or bothered to correct this obvious error.

Read the rest of this entry »

The internet has always been a favorite place for those who enjoy the odd bit of irrational hyperbole now and again, along with the occasional complete breakdown of logic, and of course the ever-popular just-plain-wierd utterance. (Disclamer: The Wikipedia Review isn’t immune to this, though there’s nowhere near as much of it here as we’ve been accused of having - at least in some quarters.)

Hardcore users and administrators on the English Wikipedia have a variant of the English language all their own, full of acronyms and jargon, as well as some rather creative redefinitions of popular terminology. Read the rest of this entry »